There has been a notable increase in provocative moves by North Korea and subsequent rebuttals by South Korea and its allies. Specifically, North Korea has rescinded its national objective of Korean reunification, categorizing South Korea as an adversarial state. What are the key drivers that have contributed to the recent aggravations on the Korean Peninsula?

Contrary to the pervasive view out there that North Korea is aching for war, or merely reacts to what big powers do, I view North Korea as the more proactive party in its relationship with China, Russia, and certainly with the US, South Korea, Japan—and beyond. North Korea is quite methodical, capable of launching both a propaganda campaign and being more threatening militarily, exporting insecurity and issuing threats.

I've observed cycles of provocations and peace. The last time that North Korea launched the peace offensive was in 2018 with Kim Jong Un's New Year's address, saying that he would be amenable to sending a North Korean delegation to South Korea for the Winter Olympics.

Since then, we have seen North Korea on a five-year long phase of provocations with over 100 missiles and many ICBM launches over the past two years. Moreover, with Russia's invasion of Ukraine, we're living in a different world where North Korea can get away with a lot more than it could back in 2016 and 2017. Kim Jong Un mentioned that he will regard South Korea as a foreign hostile state and that he would not refrain from using nukes if South Korea provoked the North first. Many have commented and much ink has been spilled on this belligerent declaration. However, I don't see any substantive change in North Korea's stance or policy. Kim Jong Un's latest threatening rhetoric is not at all different.

This is part of North Korea's psychological manipulation to create stress in South Korea and the United States. Does it mean that Kim Jong Un or his father or his grandfather ever considered South Korea as a partner for an equitable peaceful reunification? I don't think so. South Korea is, conservatively speaking, 50 times richer than North Korea. There is no such huge income disparity between two neighboring states anywhere else in the world. Moreover, South Korea remains an attractive destination and a magnet for the people of North Korea. So, the sheer existence of a thriving, rich, pleasant, prosperous, democratic, South Korea, presents an existential threat for the oppressive totalitarian regime of the North.

I contend that North Korea has never given up its goal. While it is an ambitious and unrealistic plan to take over South Korea, it is in the North Korean Constitution as the “supreme national task” to finish the goal of invading the South that began in June 1950. However, the latest threat creates further concerns especially with the upcoming National Assembly election in South Korea on April 10. The party that opposes the current South Korean administration can argue that escalating tensions on the peninsula are a result of the current President’s hardline stance against North Korea. All that sounds very tantalizing. And, of course, most people all over the world would rather have peace than war. So, this kind of psychological manipulation always works in Pyongyang’s favor.

North Korea is being clever and ratcheting up tension on the eve of the election in South Korea and of course the presidential election in the United States in November. The advantage of creating havoc, you know, being very threatening during an election year in the US, is that whoever is elected and takes office next January will remember the tense period, the protracted period of North Korea's aggression, and will not want to go back to it. So, when North Korea launches the next diplomatic charm offensive, there will be a greater temptation to believe that North Korea is now genuine and a greater propensity to give even bigger concessions to North Korea. The North Korean leader is playing to a large extent, its psychological manipulative game, trying to compel its audiences and its adversaries to not only take him more seriously, but to set the stage for the next dramatic charm offensive. It is conditioning its adversaries to be more giving, when that time comes.

How would you assess the reaction by South Korea, Japan, and the U.S. to Pyongyang’s provocations? What are the possible dangers of overreaction or underreaction?

When North Korea issues provocative statements or conducts military exercises, it's best to be restrained verbally. You have to take a stand denouncing serious violations, for example, at the United Nations Security Council, and issue resolutions that urge North Korea to calm down instead of issuing threatening statements of their own. Actors must remain calm, but also send a strong message that we are ready, if necessary, to defend ourselves. The actions taken by the US, South Korea, and Japan in recent months reflect this approach. 

The frequency and the nature of more proactive defensive drills are also very important to maintain the de facto peace. Since the Armistice Agreement in 1953, there has been a long period of de facto peace. While shaky and full of periodic tensions, it is in this period that South Korea prospered into a rich democracy. So, what explains the protracted real peace? I would say the firm commitment by the US to defend South Korea rhetorically, but more importantly, maintaining US soldiers in South Korea, that is, standing in harm's way, has sent the clearest message to North Korea. It shows that the US is really committed to fighting. These defensive military drills are reinforcement of the reality that American soldiers will defend South Korea if necessary. 

It is clear that South Korea and the US have been “provocative” themselves during these military drills, the US even bringing nuclear assets into South Korea. But I think that's the correct way to ease tensions. Peace cannot be maintained just by handshakes and smiles; peace needs to be maintained through strength. 

Furthermore, I think the US, South Korea, Japan and other democracies could improve efforts on the human rights front, disseminating information into North Korea. North Koreans are systematically subjugated and prevented from accessing the outside world. It is the most systematically information-deprived nation on Earth. So, I think the US and South Korea should take the leading role in ramping up radio broadcast and other information dissemination operations into North Korea.

There's room for improvement, certainly. But I think overall, since the advent of the Yoon Suk Yeol administration, the US, South Korea and Japan have been sending that clear message to North Korea: “Don't do it.” 

Historically, both countries have proposed various peace initiatives, including inter-Korean dialogues. Are there any mechanisms or processes that might help de-escalate tensions?

Agreements have been signed, going back to the Chung Hee dictatorship in 1972, where the first inter-Korean agreement occurred. The two sides agreed to work first on economic cultural issues, and then try to address the more thorny political division. However, that did not last too long. The next spurt of reconciliation and economic engagement efforts took place between about 2000 to 2007. However, in February 2016, the South Korean administration under President Park Geun-hye shut down the Kaesong Industrial Complex, a sprawling industrial factory complex in the North built and funded by the South, employing over 50,000 North Korean laborers, in the wake of the North’s nuclear test on January 6 and a long-range missile test on February 7 Inter-Korean dialogues have created the impression that Korean Peninsula relations were advancing in the right direction. But over the past 10 years, we have seen tension, mostly missile flights and rhetorical threats and so on, except for the diplomatic offensive in 2018. That doesn't mean that North Korea will escalate endlessly again. North Korea knows how to do both provocations and diplomatic outreach. I believe that Kim Jong Un’s younger sister, Kim Yo Jong, will be the face of the next North Korean peace offensive.

She is a new weapon in North Korea’s diplomatic arsenal. Part of this is because of the pervasive tendency among many men and some women to patronize young, smart women, that is, to underestimate them. I fear that these biases will lead the next US and South Korea administration to be more prone to forgiving and forgetting Kim Yo Jong’s past insults and actions. The rise of this royalty princess figure in North Korea is unprecedented and gives North Korea a tremendous advantage. She's a new powerful weapon in North Korea's diplomatic toolkit, and she's not to be underestimated.

How have key players such as the United States, Russia and China influenced the security dynamics of the Korean Peninsula? Can Russia and China play a potential positive role?

In the present climate, Russia and China cannot play a positive role. If the war in Ukraine comes to some kind of a stalemate or ceasefire, perhaps, then Russia would have a stronger incentive to be less belligerent and concentrate on its standing in diplomatic relations with other nations. But we don't have those conditions yet. So, we're moving in the opposite direction in terms of Russia and North Korea relations. Both Russia and North Korea have become brazen, with North Korea flaunting international law and norms by sending approximately 2.5 million artillery shells to Russia probably in return for sensitive military technology support. I don't see Russia playing any kind of positive role anytime soon, although, you know, I contend it could change. During the Cold War, we've seen ups and downs in North Korea's relationship with the Soviet Union and China. 

The Chinese, while often irate and indignant at the North Korean leader, almost always calm down when tested and increase aid to North Korea. That's how they maintain their influence over North Korea and preserve Chinese interests. And, indeed, trade between China and North Korea for 2013 hit an all-time high of $6.5 billion. That's still the record to this day. The assumption is that China will go back to coddling North Korea, giving more generously to keep North Korea on a tight leash. While there will come a time when China may try to discourage North Korea's growing belligerence, that time is not anytime soon. Not with the elections in South Korea and the US this year. Maybe if Russia withdraws from Ukraine, but not anytime soon.

Moving forward, what do you believe are the most effective strategies for promoting long-term stability on the Korean Peninsula? What are the likely enduring factors undermining peace and stability there?

Maintaining deterrence capabilities through closely coordinated intelligence sharing among the US, Japan, and South Korea is key. In fact, we do see that over the past year, especially with the Camp David trilateral meeting among President Biden, Japanese Prime Minister Kishida and South Korean President Yoon At the same time, as the US has signaled to North Korea through various channels, we're always ready to talk without preconditions. It's just that North Korea is not interested. North Korea has been playing psychological games for so many decades.

The US Congress can increase its budget for Korean service radio broadcasts into North Korea so that more people in North Korea have access to unbiased information in addition to what the government feeds them. So, the human rights approach, more specifically, the Freedom of Information approach, and strong deterrence stance are essential. While it will not change the equation overnight, that is to bring about peace and reconciliation, it will be the right move, as judged by history, I believe.